A Conversation for Ask h2g2
Rik Bailey Posted Feb 18, 2003
Sorry but noy once have I said proving Evolution wrong proves God exists.
DarthWibble Posted Feb 18, 2003
There would have been O2 around at this time although in trace amounts, oxgen can be formed for example by lightning through water vapour (creates O3 then forms O2 via radical interactions) This trace amount of oxygen would then be able to be used to create amino acids, yes even though its was trace we are talkiking about lon periods (also some oxygen would be present in the atmosphere anyway due to the fact that oxygen exists in our solar syatem and would have graviated towards the forming earth)
Adib you keep on saying that these amino acids would be destroyed by what created them, however as a chemist I can see no possible chemical intereactions in the urey/miller experiment that would lead to breakdown of amino acids, you might get soem interaction of the amino acid with the ammonia preasent(as it is a nucleophile)but that would not destroy the amnio acid.
DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me! Posted Feb 18, 2003
Madent Posted Feb 18, 2003
Okay, Adib, I'll rise to the bait.
Cut to the chase, exactly what are you saying, if not that since the theory of evolution is so patently wrong then ergo, god exists?
No one here is any position to claim to know that evolution is fact.
Those of us who have an interest, think (not believe) that the theory offers a plausible explanation for the origin of man. We also think that other supplementary theories offer (to us at least) plausible explanations for the origin of life on earth.
Exactly what do you "think" highlighting the gaps in these teories proves, other than that the research is incomplete?
Noggin the Nog Posted Feb 18, 2003
"Another thing which Darwin overlooked... was that micro changes don't always translate into macro changes. For example, the day to day weather changes that we experience are caused by different reasons than the macro changes in climate, caused by the earth's journey round the sun. Also consider Geology, the micro changes caused by weathering, sedimentary deposition, volcanic activity are different to the macro changes caused by Plate Tectonics."
This is simply dishonest. Even leaving aside the fact that any clear distinction between micro and macro in systems where changes occur on ALL scales is dubious, it is not necessary that microchanges ALWAYS translate into macro changes; only that they should sometimes. But the anti-evolution position requires that accumulations of micro changes NEVER translate into macro changes.
The relationship of weather to climate is, moreover, quite different to the relationship between successor species in a lineage. Climate is simply the average weather over a chosen period of time. Climate change is driven by long term changes in the SAME factors that govern the weather (the amount of heat reaching the earth, albedo, greenhouse gas levels, obstructions to global fluid circulation etc.) but weather is on too short a time scale for such changes to be critical. Much the same could be said of geology.
Logical fallacy masked by misdirection with an inappropriate example.
Giford Posted Feb 19, 2003
So you've got an equilibrium. But in Miller/Urey the conditions have to be held so as to force the equilibrium strongly to the oxidising end of the scale, whereas in paleo-Earth it would have been strongly at the reducing end of the scale. It's like dropping something in acid, watching it disolve and then saying that it would have dissolved in a base too. Mind you, over 100,000,000 years perhaps it would, but not if the reaction is reversible.
So I'm not saying that Miller/Urey is outright wrong, but it's a long way short of proving that this is what happened.
A few scientists feel that it is such a problem that these chemicals could not have formed on Earth and must have come from space, where they are known to exist, or from other planets (via meteors). This is panspermia - not the 'advanced civilisations seeding Earth' scenario cited by Adib's article. I personally dislike this view, though that dislike is not particularly based on scientific evidence.
btw Adib, what is/was your opinion on the article? You said you don't necessarily support it, but you did post it.
DarthWibble Posted Feb 20, 2003
I think you misunderstood my use of the word equilibrium, i was referring to a dymanic equilbriumn of enviormental factors, not a chemical equilibrium. While all reactions are in equilibrium for the formation of amino acids the equilibrium constant once the amino acids is incredible small (10-8), hence the amnio acids will not break down once formed (this is virtually chemically impossible anyway) yes the reaction that intially forms them is slow (the atmosphere we are looking at here is not 'strongly' reducing just less oxidising then our currentl atmosphere is) but over long time periods and because they cannot break down once formed enough of them can be formed (say over as small a time scale as 1 million years) to produce simple RNA molecules.
Giford Posted Feb 24, 2003
"... the equilibrium constant once the amino acids is incredible small (10-8), hence the amnio acids will not break down once formed ..." Yes, the rate is very slow, but then again the time scale is very long. This applies to both the formation and breakdown of the acids, and Miller-Urey doesn't seem to measure either! (Wrong conditions for creation, cold-trap to prevent deterioration.)
So basically what it boils down to is:
if the rate of formation of proteins is greater than the rate of their destruction, you get huge numbers of proteins over a large timescale, and life (probably) appears; if not, you don't and it doesn't. I just don't see how Urey/Miller sheds any further light on that.
Sorry this was typed out in a bit of a hurry!
DarthWibble Posted Feb 25, 2003
The urey/miller experiment simply proves that these amino acids do form in the atomosphere of the early earth you have to use chemistry to extrapolate and show that enough of them could be formed to create after time RNA
Ste Posted Feb 25, 2003
That's the crux of the issue. Can you get RNA forming naturally? If so you have a combined hereditary and self-catalysing molecule. If amino acids and nucleotides (a devivative of amino acids) can form naturally then I can't see how that answer can be 'no'.
Wrap 'em up in spheres of membranes (phospholipid bilayers, also demonstrated to form naturally) and you have yourself a primitive cell.
Rik Bailey Posted Feb 25, 2003
Firstly sorry but I wont be posting to much these days as I am spending a lot of time away from normal life (for me) at the moment. Wasting away you see, slowely but surely. Not to sure if its all a dream, or in my head but hey I need to rest a while thats all. Nothing terminal so don't worry, just burning my self out so I need a brake you now how it is. Anyway the article your all referring to well its not mine, I did not have a strong opinion on it and jst wanted to hear your views on that subject thats all there is to it.
As for whats being said that I don't support evolution. True I don't
I believe in creation but hey can't prove it and am not forcing it on to you lot. I admit that evolution does have a few answers in it but for me its not enough. It does not have all the answers but never does creation on a scientific bases I admit.
I believe in God and creation because thats who I am, I choose this path after looking over many other paths and I have found the right one for me. Simple to understand really.
I argue about evolution with you lot but not very much, a few years ago I would have argued strongly and I was not religious then. As I said at the start I'm tired these days, I'm only twenty one this year and already I have suppased all but two of my friends on knowledge in Islam and most of my friends are in there fortys and fifties and have been studying all ther life in Islam. Anyway I have learned that there is no real point in arguing thats why I only seldom ask questions. Its hard to change people's opinions on things when you are dealing with this debate. Creationist have faith there right and evoluntionists have faith that there right. (Not talking about religous faith there you understand).
Anyway to get to the point. There are many things that trouble me with the evolutionery theroy. Why do we walk on two feet as we can't travel as fast as we could if we had four, why compared to most animals are we actually physically weak especially for the first few years. Why can we have a consouse. We feel guilty if we do good or bad animals don't and we can choose between doing good and bad but animals can't tell the difference. Why are we the only animals that are as 'civilsed as us', why can't we co-exist like other animals with each other and with our enviroment.
Anyway talk to you when I get chance.
Madent Posted Feb 26, 2003
I suggest that we DON'T try to answer any of the points in Adib's last post.
Adib is entitled to his beliefs and has clearly chosen to adhere to those beliefs, even though I'm sure he has read some of the evolutionary answers to the points he raises.
The key points of agreement in the debate with Adib are that:
- both sides are agreed that the others view point is not exclusive (evolution does not prove that god doesn't exist in the same way that gods existence does not prove evolution wrong)
- both sides are agreed that creation-science is bunk
Good luck in your studies Adib, I'm sure you will do well in the next festival to recite the Quran.
Potholer Posted Feb 26, 2003
For a scientific (though maybe non-mainstream) view on human evolution with specific concentraion on what's odd about humans, I'd recommend you read Elaine Morgan's 'Descent Of Woman' sometime. It is quite thought-provoking and well written, as long as you don't mind references to female reproductive biology.
See you around sometime.
Rik Bailey Posted Feb 28, 2003
Thanks for the good luck. Maybe one day you will pick up a Quran and read it some time, you might understand me a little better then. Though I suggest you read a Arabic one meaning you should learn arabic.
R. Daneel Olivaw -- (User 201118) (Member FFFF, ARS, and DOS) ( -O- ) Posted Mar 2, 2003
OK, I might try that. After I get around to reading the Bbile so that I can understand what makes Christians act as thay do.
Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor language skills to learn Arabic. Sorry.
(This is not intended as sarcasm.)
Rik Bailey Posted Mar 5, 2003
no problem. Arabic is a very hard language to understand and learn.
Giford Posted Mar 13, 2003
While searching for something completely different, I found this site:
It's the first time I've seen an anti-creationist site that specifically addresses Muslim creationism. A sign that Muslim Creationism is growing and needs a response?
Giford Posted Mar 13, 2003
Rik Bailey Posted Mar 20, 2003
Hi saw your sight, fairly interesting but some bits where taken out of context of what he ment. Not that I'm sticking up for him. There was a interesting link which I did laugh at though. Muslims say that to prove the Quran was not written by god then right a sura like the ones in the Quran, which is where the challange comes from. Any way they said they have wrote three. Er no they have not, they wrote three suras that sounded ok in english but when written in Arabic it does not match or even come close to the depth and elogance of the Sura's in the Quran. Very funny I found.
Key: Complain about this post
- 881: Rik Bailey (Feb 18, 2003)
- 882: DarthWibble (Feb 18, 2003)
- 883: DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me! (Feb 18, 2003)
- 884: Madent (Feb 18, 2003)
- 885: Noggin the Nog (Feb 18, 2003)
- 886: Giford (Feb 19, 2003)
- 887: DarthWibble (Feb 20, 2003)
- 888: Giford (Feb 24, 2003)
- 889: DarthWibble (Feb 25, 2003)
- 890: Ste (Feb 25, 2003)
- 891: Rik Bailey (Feb 25, 2003)
- 892: Madent (Feb 26, 2003)
- 893: Potholer (Feb 26, 2003)
- 894: Rik Bailey (Feb 28, 2003)
- 895: R. Daneel Olivaw -- (User 201118) (Member FFFF, ARS, and DOS) ( -O- ) (Mar 2, 2003)
- 896: Rik Bailey (Mar 5, 2003)
- 897: Giford (Mar 13, 2003)
- 898: Giford (Mar 13, 2003)
- 899: Rik Bailey (Mar 20, 2003)